On 2017-03-02 14:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI
voting algorithm for Board elections)"):
Ian and Joshua are dismissing these concerns, but have not given any
technical grounds, either now or in the previous round of discussion.
[...]
AV's virtue over Condorcet is that Condorcet is very hard to count in
a nontrivial election without using computers. This means that
Condorcet is not suitable for high-stakes public elections.
The purpose of elections is not to count. You'll have to do better to show that
Condorcet is not suitable for high-stakes public elections.
(And it
explains why civil society orgnisations which care about public voting
reform don't advocate Condorcet-based systems.)
Unless that discusses specific civil society organisations which care about
public voting reform, that is quite wrong. I won't counter with a simplistic
explanation, but merely point out that most such organisations are interested
in multi-district elections.
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
